Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10973-020-10177-0

4E analysis and three‑objective optimization for selection of the best

prime mover in smart energy systems for residential applications:
a comparison of four different scenarios
Ehsan Gholamian1   · Pedram Hanafizadeh1 · Pouria Ahmadi1 · Livio Mazzarella2

Received: 8 June 2020 / Accepted: 7 August 2020

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2020

Abstract
Recently, using integrated energy systems for residential-scale applications has been of great interest to the researchers. The
objective of this study is the proposal, techno-economic analysis, and optimization of the best prime mover for the residential
scale combined cooling, heating, and power generation system (CCHP). Different prime movers consisting of solid oxide fuel
cell (SOFC), internal combustion engine (ICE), microgas turbine (MGT), and hybrid SOFC/GT system for power produc-
tion are integrated with HRSG and double effect Li/Br refrigeration system for heating and cooling generation, respectively.
A parametric study is conducted on the best case to find the key decision variables. Also, a very cutting-edge optimization,
which is 3D multi-objective optimization, is carried out for minimizing the unit product cost and emission and maximizing
the exergetic efficiency. Results revealed that the hybrid SOFC/GT has higher exergy efficiency of 69.06% and unit product
cost of 37.78 $ GJ−1, among other case studies. Also, optimization results indicate a maximum exergy efficiency of 73.15%,
and a minimum cost of 25.08 ($ GJ−1) can be reached for the SOFC-/GT-based CCHP system. Moreover, the optimized
emission for the best-case scenario becomes 62.52 g MWh−1.

Keywords  Evolutionary-based optimization · Environmental analysis · Prime mover selection · Solid oxide fuel cell ·
Stirling engine
List of symbols K Equilibrium constant
A Area, ­m2 LHVf Fuel lower heating value
c Specific exergy cost, $ GJ−1 M Molar mass
Ċ Cost rate, $ h−1 ṁf Fuel mass flow rate
Ė Exergy rate, kW N Operating hours, h
f Exergoeconomic factor n1 , n2 , … , n7 Mole number of reaction components
F Faraday constant, C mol−1 ne Number of electrons produced per hydro-
Δ̄g0 Change in molar Gibbs free energy, J/mol gen mole
h Enthalpy ṅ Molar flow rate
ir Interest rate NC Number of cells in the stack
j Current density, A ­m−2 P Pressure
J PEME current density PR Pressure ratio
pH2 O Partial pressure of ­H2O
pH2 Partial pressure of ­H2
* Pedram Hanafizadeh
hanafizadeh@ut.ac.ir
pO2 Partial pressure of ­O2
Q̇ high Heat rate of the heater inside the Stirling
* Pouria Ahmadi
Pahmadi@ut.ac.ir
engine, kW
Q̇ loss Heat loss rate of cooler inside the Stirling
1
Centre of Excellence in Design and Optimization, School engine, kW
of Mechanical Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, R Total ohmic resistance
Iran
RAR Anode recycling ratio
2
Department of Energy, Polytechnic University of Milan, RCR Cathode recycling ratio
Milan, Italy

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 E. Gholamian et al.

R̄ Universal gas constant, J ­mol-1 K CHP Combined heating and power

RV Piston compression ratio of Stirling engine ICE Internal combustion engine
s Specific entropy PY Present year
T Temperature R Reforming
Tg Gasification temperature S Shifting
Uf Fuel utilization ratio SOFC Solid oxide fuel cell
V Voltage, V SE Stirling engine
V0 Reversible potential tot Total
VC Cell voltage, V
Greek letters
Vloss Loss voltage, V
ηpcy Polytrophic efficiency
VN Reversible cell voltage, V
ηmech, SE Stirling mechanical efficiency
w Mole fraction of moisture in the biomass
ε Emission indicator
(kmol/kmol)
εSE Heater efficiency inside the Stirling engine
Ẇ Power, kW
ζ Lowest to highest temperature of Stirling
yi Molar fraction
engine
yr Extent of water gas shift reaction, mol/s
γ Ratio of specific heats
xr Extent of steam reforming reaction for
ηI Energy efficiency
methane, mol/s
ηII Exergy efficiency
Ż Cost rate of components, $ h−1
φ Maintenance factor
ŻCI Capital investment cost rate of components,
τ Annual plant operation hours
$ h−1
OM σ Total ionic conductivity
Ż Operating and maintenance cost rate of
λ Content of water
components, $ h−1
Superscripts
ch Chemical Introduction
ph Physical
A combined cooling, heating, and power generation system
Subscripts and abbreviations
shows higher capability in energy and cost-saving, as well
0 Dead state
as its flexibility and reliability in generating power, and
act Activation
thus becomes one of the most promising methods of energy
AB Afterburner
conversion [1]. Also, the total efficiency of thermal power
AC Air blower
plants in Iran and in general is between 30 and 50% while
an Anode
considering 20% transmission losses; the distributed energy
AHX Air heat exchanger
generation seems more perspective [2].
ca Cathode
One of the main concerns of designing the CCHP system
CEPI Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index
for residential applications is the selection of high-efficiency
conc Concentration
prime movers. Different models of integration of the CCHP
CRF Capital recovery factor
system have been studied with different prime movers in
D Destruction
the literature [3, 4], as many of them either studied single
e Electrolyte
PMs in energetic or economic points of view. In this regard,
FC Fuel blower
Kaldehi et al. [5] studied a micro-Stirling engine as a prime
FHX Fuel heat exchanger
mover of a CCHP system in the residential sector for different
HS, gas Highest Stirling gas temperature
climates. They found out that the integration of the Stirling
i Inlet
engine with heating and cooling cycles results in a signifi-
INV DC to AC inverter
cant amount of emission reduction. Their results revealed
k kth component
that maximum ­CO2 reduction in every climate is more than
L Loss
40%. Also, Mojaver et al. [6] investigated an SOFC-based
LS, gas Lowest Stirling gas temperature
power generation system and found out that at optimum con-
MC Moisture content
ditions, the efficiency and emission are 48.03% and 281.4 kg/
PM Prime mover
MW.h, respectively. Abbasi et al. [7] studied ICE and GT as
GT Gas turbine
prime movers of a CCHP and considered the economic and
CCHP Combined cooling heating and power
exergetic factors of the system. They found out that energy

13
4E analysis and three-objective optimization for selection of the best prime mover in smart…
efficiency will increase up to 10% if both prime movers are
selected in one order. Also, the best scenario was combin-
ing the ICE and GT as prime movers and 87% energy effi-
ciency, 62.8% exergy efficiency, and operating cost reduction
of about 80% are obtained. Optimal design and operation
strategy for integrated evaluation of CCHP (combined cool-
ing heating and power) system is studied by Cai et al. [8].
Mehrpouya et al. [9] studied technical performance analysis
of a (CCHP) system based on (SOFC) technology for educa-
tional building applications. The SOFC efficiency of 120 kW
was about 45% while the hybrid system electrical cooling
efficiency reached 58%, and the total CCHP system was 60%
efficient. Also, they found out that the capital recovery factor
is 8.3 years. Moreover, using SOFC and gas turbines as prime
movers of CCHP systems has been of great interest to the
researchers. Wang et al. [10] investigated the CCHP system
integrating gas turbine and heat-driven cooling/power cogen-
eration. The main result of their research was that the CCHP
system could consume 31% less natural gas than stand-alone
power generation systems. Optimization and analysis of the
CCHP system based on energy load coupling of residential
and office buildings were carried out by Li et al. [11]. They
found out that increasing gas prices will result in increased
air-conditioning cooling load. Also, using SOFC-based
CCHP system in residential buildings in China is studied by
Jing et al. [12]. Their study included a comparison between
SOFC-based CCHP and combustion-based ones, which
resulted in that SOFC-CCHP systems demonstrate outstand-
ing performance on energy efficiency as well as reducing car-
bon emission. Abbasi et al. [13] proposed a methodology to
size the CCHP systems prime movers for large-scale residen-
tial buildings. Their results show that ICE-based trigenera-
tion system is beneficial in all climates of the study. But the
more important finding was that determining the right CCHP
system is a far better solution for every environment. Many
researchers have put their best effort in gas turbine and fuel
cell analysis and optimization [14, 15]. Farahnak et al. [16]
used ICE as the prime mover of the CCHP system and found
out that using the CCHP system in small buildings results in
17.24% energy saving, but in large buildings, it causes 5.1%
energy saving. Also, according to their study, the optimal
payback period for large residential buildings is found to be
5.08 years. Feng et al. studied the performance analysis of
a CCHP system with different cooling supply modes [17].
Moghimi et al. [18] studied GT-based CCHP systems, and
a 4E analysis is performed to show that the CCHP system
has7% higher exergy efficiency and 12% higher energy effi-
ciency instead than stand-alone Brayton cycle. Exergy analy-
sis is identified as a very powerful and cutting-edge tool in
analyzing the power plants, which helps the scientists define
the inefficiencies in the systems and improve the effective-
ness of these power plants [9, 19]. In this regard, Ansarinasab
et al. [20] developed an exergy-based investigation (exergy,
exergoeconomic, etc.) of hydrogen liquefaction plant. Moreo-
ver, in a review study, Ahmadi et al. [21], investigated the
thermodynamic and economic analysis of performance evalu-
ation of all the thermal power plants and they found out that
exergy analysis enables designers to make intricate thermo-
dynamic systems operate more efficiently. Al Moussavi et al.
[22] studied optimal management of SOFC-based CCHP sys-
tems for residential applications. Two strategies for the opera-
tion were employed: off-grid following electrical load and
on-grid baseload operations. Their optimized results show
that the CCHP system performs better from energetic and
economic points of view. The maximum energy and exergy
efficiencies (65.2% and 45.77%) and minimum system cost
rate (22.2 cents kWh−1) are obtained under on-grid baseload
operation for the CCHP system. Yousefi et al. [23] studied
the component sizing of a hybrid ICE + PV/T-driven CCHP
microgrid system and optimized the system multi-objectively.
The results discovered that, regardless of slight growth in
the average rate of net present cost, the combined cooling,
heating, and power system integrated with solar energy has a
substantially better performance in energy saving and emis-
sions than the ICE-driven system. Rey et al. [24] analyzed the
performance of an ICE-based CCHP and compared it with
experimental data. Results revealed that maximum electrical
efficiency is 7.63%, and it is obtained when the heat pump
is off, and the engine is operating at a low speed. Also, they
reported that the higher performance of the gas engine-driven
heat pump is 10.79% when the engine is running at high
speed. Luo et al. [25] studied a multisupply multidemand
control strategy for combined cooling, heating, and power
system primed with SOFC and gas turbine. Also, Chen et al.
[26] investigated the Multi-criteria assessment and optimiza-
tion study on a 5 kW PEMFC-based residential CCHP sys-
tem. The optimized results show that exergy efficiency, cost,
and GHG emission are 39.9%, 29337.3$, and 1.8 × 107 gr,
respectively, at optimal points. Chitgar et al. [27] proposed an
integrated energy system based on SOFC. The optimization
results in their works showed that an optimal point exergy
efficiency and total cost rate are 54% and 36.8 $ h−1, respec-
tively. Behzadi et al. [28] studied a hybrid renewable sys-
tem and found out that in case of considering cooling set for
absorption chiller, it has the highest exergy destruction rate.
Jokar et al. [29] carried out a multi-objective optimization
of hybrid fuel cell systems and figured out that in optimum
case the exergy destruction becomes 1.314 and rate density
meets 0.3864 kW m−2. Safari and Dincer [30] developed a
novel biomass fired multigeneration system with hydrogen
production. They found out that the energy and exergy effi-
ciency of hybrid system reaches 40% and 63.6%, respectively.
Beigzadeh et al. [31] modeled a SOFC and absorption chiller
using nanofluids as heat transporters. They found out that
nanofluid would result in an improve about 6&in efficiency.
13

There is a growing attention to the importance of prime
movers of CCHP systems to reach maximum efficiency and
the techno-economic and environmental analysis of these
systems. However, little work is done on the comprehen-
sive analysis and a complete multi-objective optimization
of 3 counterparts of the simulation. To summarize the lit-
erature survey from the perspective of the present study, the
research background is gathered in Table 1, which indicates
the authors’ motivations to carry out the study.
Some latest research on economic and environmental
analysis of building-integrated CCHP systems reveals the
importance of techno-economic and environmental analysis
of these systems.
In this paper, the trigeneration system is proposed to supply
the heating and cooling, along with the power demand in a resi-
dential building. A comparison is made to find the best prime
mover for the CCHP system between SOFC, GT, and ICE, con-
sidering the efficiency, emission, and economic factors. The
parametric study of key design variables like (stack temperature
difference, fuel utilization factor, compressor pressure ratio and
pinch point temperature difference, etc.) defines the domain
of optimization. The scenario analysis helps us select the best
prime mover based on the needs of the building, for example,
power, heating, or cooling. Also, each study in the literature has
focused on certain area and objective like optimizing energy,
exergy, cost, or emission. Considering the literature survey (as
illustrated in Table 1), there is a knowledge gap of a compre-
hensive analysis of the optimized prime mover’s selection in
microsize following main objectives and novelties as below:
• Comprehensive exergy, exergoeconomic, and environ-
mental analysis of four CCHP systems and multi-objec-
tive optimization of the best prime mover case.
• Considering the low price of fuel for Tehran (instead of bio-
mass or solar power), to result in an excellent payback period.
• Evolutionary-based, 3-dimensional multi-objective
optimization of the best-case scenario, to find the higher
exergetic efficiency and lower emission and unit product
cost.
• Using a hybrid renewable energy system with consider-
ing heat recovery options for HRSG and refrigeration
system.
• Comparison of SOFC, ICE, and MGT for residential
application power production
System description and assumptions
Figure 1 shows the schematic diagram of the different sce-
narios proposed in this study. The prime mover of the CCHP
system for power production might be stand-alone, SOFC
(scenario 1), ICE (scenario 2), MGT (scenario 3), or hybrid
SOFC-GT (scenario 4). The systems are considered in a way
13
E. Gholamian et al.
that the power generation is different in 4 scenarios, and the
exiting streams play the same role in the generation of heating
and cooling. The exciting high-temperature combustion prod-
ucts are used in a heat recovery system to produce hot water
for domestic use and in a double effect Li/Br system for pro-
duction of refrigeration, respectively. In the first case, a fuel
cell is considered for power generation, and HRSG and chiller
are used to generate heating and cooling, respectively. The
fuel is blown into the fuel mixer in state 7. In the fuel mixer,
it is mixed up with the return stream from the fuel cell at 8b
and exits to go through the fuel cell at state 8. On the other
hand, the air is brought to the cathode to be reacted with fuel
after being mixed in the mixer and passed through an air heat
exchanger to raise the fluid temperature to the temperature
of the cathode. After electrochemical reaction occurs in the
fuel cell stack, the exiting streams mix and burn in the after-
burner to ensure there is not any unreacted gas to be wasted
and raise the temperature to higher levels. The existing gas at
state 10 heats the air at AHX and then goes through the HRSG
and double effect lithium bromide cycle to produce hot water
and cooling. If the hot gases are warm enough, it will pass
through a single turbine (scenario 4) to provide extra power.
The description of the double effect refrigeration cycle can
be found in the literature [32]. An MGT and ICE are other
unsophisticated and straightforward method to be used as the
chief mover of a residential-scale CCHP system (scenarios 3
and 2, respectively). At the combustion chamber of MGT, the
fuel is mixed up with incoming air of the compressor before
being expanded in the turbine. The hot gases are then used in
an HRSG to create heating as in scenario 1.
Nevertheless, the ICE can create less power; it can gen-
erate more heating by the cooling water used to cool the
engine to lower temperatures in scenario 2. There are some
assumptions made in the modeling of the CCHP system, in
which the main premises considered to model the proposed
system are as follows [33, 34]:
• There is negligible heat loss from the components
• Steady-state conditions are applied
• Air and gas mixtures are modeled via ideal gas models
• Contact resistance in SOFC is neglected
• Kinetic and potential energy changes are small to con-
sider
• Unburned gasses are fully oxidized at the exit of after-
burner and combustion chambers (scenarios 2 and 3)
Modeling and analysis
In order to render the analysis of the proposed systems,
thermodynamic equations (energy and exergy balance equa-
tions as well as mass balance) are solved for each compo-
nent of the order (considering a control volume around the
 Table 1  Summary of the literature survey highlighting the research gap
Author Year System Reformer/fuel Energy Exergy Exergoenviron- Exer- Maximum 2D Multi-objec- 3D Multi-objec-
mental analysis goeco- exergy effi- tive optimization tive optimiza-
nomic ciency tion

Kaldehi et al. [6] 2017 Stirling engine/CCHP  NA/NG  ✔ ✖ ✖ ✖ NA ✖ ✖

Mojaver et al. [7] 2020 SOFC/CCHP Internal/NG  ✔ ✔ ✖ ✔ 48.03 ✖ ✖
Abbasi et al. [8] 2018 ICE-GT  NA/NG  ✔ ✔ ✖ ✔ 62.8 ✖ ✖
Cai et al. [9] 2016 GT-CHP  NA/NG ✔ ✔ ✖ ✖ NA ✖ ✖
Mehrpouya et al. [10] 2019 SOFC-CCHP Internal/NG ✔ ✔ ✔ ✖ 60 ✖ ✖
Wang et al. [11] 2017 GT-CCHP  NA/NG ✔ ✖ ✖ ✖ NA ✖ ✖
Li et al. [12] 2014 CCHP  NA/NG ✔ ✖ ✖ ✖ NA ✖ ✖
Jing et al. [13] 2017 SOFC-CCHP  Internal/NG  ✔ ✔ ✖ ✖ 58 ✔ ✖
Abbasi et al. [14] 2018 CCHP NA/NA ✔ ✖ ✖ ✖ NA ✖ ✖
Farahnak et al. [15] 2015 ICE -CCHP NA/NG ✔ ✖ ✖ ✖ NA ✖ ✖
Feng et al. [16] 2019 ICE -CCHP  NA/NG  ✔ ✖ ✖ ✖ NA ✖ ✖
Moghimi et al. [17] 2018 GT-CCHP NA/NG  ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 45.77 ✔ ✖
Al Moussavi et al. [18] 2017 SOFC-CCHP  Internal/NG ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 45.77 ✖ ✖
4E analysis and three-objective optimization for selection of the best prime mover in smart…

Yousefi et al. [19] 2017 ICE-CCHP  NA/NG ✔ ✖ ✖ ✖ NA ✔ ✖

Rey et al. [9] 2014 ICE-CCHP NA/NG ✔ ✖ ✖ ✖ NA ✖ ✖
Luo et al. [20] 2017 SOFC/GT-CCHP  Internal/NG  ✔ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✔  ✖
Chen et al. [21] 2018 PEMFC-CCHP NA/H2 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 39.9 ✖  ✖
Chitgar et al. [22] 2019 SOFC-multigenerational Internal/NG ✔ ✔ ✖ ✔  54 ✖  ✖
Present work _ Hybrid SOFC/GT/HRSG/Li-Br Internal/Natural gas ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 73.15 ✔ ✔

✔ Analysis is carried out

✖ Analysis is not carried out
NA Not applicable and NG natural gas

13
 E. Gholamian et al.

elements) in the package of engineering equation solver

∑ ∑
̇ Q − Ex
Ex ̇ W= ṁ out exout − ̇ D
ṁ in exin + Ex (3)
EES. Also, to find the final cost and ­CO2 emission of the
system, the environmental assessment, along with cost bal- in which Ex
̇ is the rate of exergy and Q̇ and Ẇ  , respectively,
ance equations, is considered. The efficiency and the unit define the rate of heat transfer and power of the control vol-
product cost of each scenario are regarded as the objective ume. There are different subsystems in the proposed CCHP
functions of genetic algorithms optimization code, which is system which will be discussed through the following:
developed in MATLAB.
SOFC system
Thermodynamic modeling
In the SOFC system, the fuel will be reformed, so the H
­ 2
Energy and exergy balance is solved for each component to content becomes higher in the SOFC system and so the
find the corresponding energy flow and exergy destruction global reaction as equation four is taken place [37]:
via [35, 36]:
1
∑ ∑ H2 + O2 → H2 O (4)
ṁ in = ṁ out (1) 2
For the reforming purposes, the internal reformer is a
better choice since it will charge no additional cost to the
∑ ∑
Q̇ − Ẇ = ṁ out hout − ṁ in hin (2)
system [33].
The two equations occurring in each cell of the stack are
reforming and shifting equations, the equilibrium constant
of which is [33, 38]:
[( ) ( ) ]
Δ̄g0R ṅ CO + xr − yr × ṅ H2 + 3xr + yr − zr P2
lnKR = − = ln ) × 2 (5)
̄ FC,e
( ) (
RT ṅ CH4 + xr × ṅ H2 O − xr − yr + zr ntot,in + 2xr

Stack stack
(a) 34 (b) 34

27 28
27 28
29 EV4 30 32 33
40 29 EV4 30 32 33

EV2 41 Water in EV2 21

water in 21 26
26 35 EV1
35 EV1

14 14
25 36 22
25 36 22 Pump
Pump EV3 EV3
HRSG

24 37
HRSG

24 37

23
23 44 42 43
43 45
44 45 42 15
15

Air and combustion products

Air and combustion products Water 4
Water 12 Li/Br
Li/Br
8b
6 7 8 9b
9 1
5
Fuel
11 Electrolyte

4 4a Pump 3
3a 3
2
2
3b

10
1

Fig. 1  Schematic diagrams of the proposed CCHP systems for a scenario 1, b scenario 2, c scenario 3, d scenario 4

13
4E analysis and three-objective optimization for selection of the best prime mover in smart…

stack
stack
(c) 34 (d) 34

27 28
27 28 40
29 EV4 30 32 33
40
29 FV4 30 32 33 EV2 41
water in 21
water in EV2 41 26 EV1
21 35
26 35
EV1 14
25 36 22
14 Pump EV3

HRSG
25 36 22 24 37
Pump EV3
HRSG

24 37 23
44 42 43
45
15
23
44 45 43
42
15 Air and combustion products
Water 12
Li/Br
8h
Air and combustion products
2 3 6 7 8 9b
4
Water
9
Li/Br 5
Fuel Fuel
11 Electrolyte

3a 3 4 4a
2
3b
1

Air 10
1

Fig. 1  (continued)

[ ( ) ]
(11)
) (
Δ̄g0s ṅ CO2 + yr × ṅ H2 + 3xr + yr − zr Ẇ SOFC,stack,AC = Ẇ SOFC,stack,DC × 𝜂inv
lnKS = − = ln (
̄ FC,e
) ( )
RT ṅ CO + xr − yr × ṅ H2 O − xr − yr + zr
in which j is the current density and Vc is the voltage of the
(6)
cell and is calculated from the nominal voltage minus the
where xr and yr , respectively, are the reaction rate of reform- losses which occur in the cell as:
ing and shifting equations. Moreover, Faraday’s law is used
to determine the amount of hydrogen reacted according to V c = V N − V loss (12)
equation four as:
Vloss = Vohm + Vact + Vconc (13)
ne Fzr
j= (7)
Nc Ac � �
ΔG0 RT ̄ C pH2 O
in which Nc, Ac, and ne refer to the number of cells, area of VN = − − ln (14)
ne F ne F
√
pH2 pO2
cells, and the number of electrons transferred in the global
reaction, respectively. in which Vohm , Vact , Vconc is Ohmic over potential, activation
Furthermore, to find the reacted hydrogen, the fuel uti- overpotential, and concentration overpotential, respectively
lization factor will be written in the system of equations as [33, 40].
[39]:
zr Other system components
Uf = (8)
ṅ H2 + 3xr + yr
Energy and exergy balance equations for SOFC and other
Also, to find the net power output to the SOFC stack, components like heat exchangers, compressors, pumps, and
the energy balance can be written as follows to find the gas turbine, as well as expansion valves, are tabulated in Table 2
properties at the exit of the stack: based on Eqs. 1–3.

Ẇ SOFC,stack,DC = mh8 + mh
̇ 4 − mh
̇ 3 − mh
̇ 7 (9) Exergoeconomic analysis
Also, from the electrochemical reaction, the fuel cell
To find a suitable option between different scenarios from
power is:
an economic point of view, an exergoeconomic analysis
Ẇ SOFC,stack,DC = Nc Ac jVc (10) seems necessary. Between various methods that have been

13
 E. Gholamian et al.

Table 2  Energy and exergy rate balances for the system components in different scenarios [41, 42]
Component Energy balance Exergy balance

SOFC
SOFC Ẇ SOFC,stack,DC = mh
( )
̇ 8 + mh
̇ 4 − mh
̇ 3 − mh
̇ 7 ̇ D,SOFC = EX
EX ̇ 7 + EẊ 9 − EẊ 4 + EX
̇ 8 − Ẇ SOFC,stack,DC
AHX
( )
0 = mh ̇ 9 + mḣ 2 − mh
̇ 3a − mh
̇ 10 ̇ D,AHX = EX
EX ̇ 9 − EẊ 10 − EX ̇ 3a − EX
̇ 2
Fuel blower Ẇ F.B = mh
( )
̇ 6 − mh
̇ 5 ̇ D,FC = Ẇ FC − EX
EX ̇ 6 − EX
̇ 5
Air blower Ẇ A.B = mh
̇ 2 − mh
̇ 1 ĖXD,AC = ẆAC − (ĖX2-ĖX1)
Afterburner 0 = mh ̇ 8b + mh
̇ 4a − mh
̇ 9 ĖXD,AB = ĖX4a + ĖX8b −  ĖX9
Anode mixer 0 = mh ̇ 6 − mh
̇ 7b − mh
̇ 7 ĖXD,AM = ĖX6 + ĖX7b − ĖX7
Cathode mixer 0 = mh ̇ 3a − mh
̇ 3 − mh
̇ 3b ĖXD,CM = ĖX3b + ĖX3a − ĖX3
ICE
ICE ĖXD,ICE = ĖXFuel  − (ĖX2 − ĖX1 + ẆICE)
( )
Ẇ ICE = 𝜂pcy Q̇ high − Q̇ loss
MGT
Comp. Ẇ Comp = mḣ 2 − mh
̇ 1 ̇ D,C = EX
EX ̇ 1 − EX
̇ 2 + Ẇ C1
C.C Q̇ loss = mh
̇ 2 − mh
̇ 3 + mLHVfuel ̇ D,CC = EX
EX ̇ 2 + EX
̇ fuel − EX
̇ 3
GT Ẇ GT = mh
̇ 4 − mh ̇ 3 ̇ D,T = EX
EX ̇ 3 − EX
̇ 4 − Ẇ T
Li/Br double effect absorption chiller
HPG Q̇ HPG = ṁ 11 h11 + ṁ 32 h32 − ṁ 31 h31 ̇ D,HPG = EX
EX ̇ 31 − EX
̇ 32 − EX
̇ 11 − EX
̇ st.
LPG ṁ 11 h11 + ṁ 10 h10 − ṁ 14 h14 − ṁ 15 h15 − ṁ 15 h15 = 0; ̇ D,LPG = EX
EX ̇ 11 + EX
̇ 10 − EX
̇ 12 − EX
̇ 14 − EX
̇ 15
Q̇ LPG = ṁ 11 h11 − ṁ 14 h14
Evap. Q̇ evap = ṁ 28 h28 − ṁ 27 h27 ̇ D,evap = EX
EX ̇ 22 + EX
̇ 27 − EX
̇ 28 − EX
̇ 23
Cond. Q̇ cond = ṁ 14 h14 + ṁ 13 h13 − ṁ 26 h26 ̇ D,Cond = EX
EX ̇ 14 + EX
̇ 13 + EX
̇ 20 − EX
̇ 21 − EX
̇ 26
Abs. Q̇ abs = ṁ 28 h28 + ṁ 17 h17 − ṁ 29 h29 ̇ D,Abs = EX
EX ̇ 28 + EX
̇ 24 + EX
̇ 17 − EX
̇ 29 − EX
̇ 25
Pump h30 = h29 +
Ẇ p ̇ D,P = EX
EX ̇ 29 − EX
̇ 30 + Ẇ p
ṁ 29 ,W
( )
̇p
= ṁ 29 × PHPG − Pabs ∕𝜂p × 𝜌29
LTHEX � )
̇ D,LTHEX = EX
̇ 15 + EX
̇ 30 − EX
̇ 16 − EX
̇ 31
(
h16 = h15 − h15 − h16 × 𝜂LTHEX EX
ṁ ( �
= 15 h15 − h16 + h15 h16 = h Tabs , x15
) ( )
h16
ṁ 16 ,
HTHEX � )
̇ D,HTHEX = EX
̇ 31 + EX
̇ 33 − EX
̇ 32 − EX
̇ 35
(
h29 = h28 − h28 − h29 × 𝜂HTHEX EX
ṁ ( �
= 28 h28 − h29 + h26 , h29 = h T26 , x28
) ( )
h27
ṁ 26
E.V hi = he ̇ D,HTR = EX
EX ̇ i − EX
̇ e

proposed (SPECO), specific costing theory is used expan- Ċ out = cout EX

̇ out (18)
sively to figure out the economic aspects of energy systems.
In this method, the exergy cost of the component is
determined via writing exergy balance equations and solv- Ċ q = cq EX
̇ q (19)
ing them simultaneously with cost balances. In order to
find the exergy, the cost of each stream, auxiliary equations Ċ w = cw EX
̇ w (20)
are applied to each component. Cost balance equations are
applied to each system component as follows [43]: in which Ż kOM is the price of operation and maintenance of
∑ ∑ each component, c represents specific exergy cost, and Ċ
Ċ out,k + Ċ w,k = Ċ in,k + Ċ q,k + Ż k (15) stands for the cost rate.
Besides, annual Levelized capital investment for the kth
component is determined [44]:
Ż k = Ż kCI + Ż kOM (16)
CRF
( )
Ż kCI = Zk (21)
Ċ = cEX
̇ (17) 𝜏

13
4E analysis and three-objective optimization for selection of the best prime mover in smart…

Table 3  Cost equations for Component Cost equation

components of the proposed
systems [47–49] SOFC
SOFC
( )
ZSOFC = Aa NFC 2.96TFC,e − 1907
AHX
[ ( )0.78 ]
AAHX
ZAHX = 3 × 130 × 0.093

Fuel and air blowers (

Ẇ AC
)0.67
ZAC = ZAF = 91562 × 455

Afterburner 46.08×ṁ 4 ( )
ZAB = 1 + e0.018T11 −26.4
(0.955−(P11 ∕P4 ))
Inverter WSOFC,DC 0.7
( ̇ )
Zinv = 105 × 500

ICE
ICE ZICE = 2200 × Ẇ ICE
MGT
Comp.
( )( ) ( )
75ṁ air Pout Pout
ZAC = 0.9−𝜂is,C Pin
ln Pin

C.C 1
( )
Zcc = 48.64ṁ air (1 + exp 0.018Tout − 26.4 ) P
0.995− Pout
in

GT
( 479.34ṁ )( ( ))(
= 0.92−𝜂 g Ln Pinlet∕P
)
ZGT 1 + e0.036Tinlet −54.4
st outlet

Li/Br double effect absorption chiller

HPG (
AHPG
)0.6
ZHPG = 17500 100

LPG (
ALPG
)0.6
ZLPG = 17500 100

Evap. ( A )0.6
Evap
ZEvap = 16000 100

Cond. (
ACond
)0.6
ZCond = 8000 100

Abs. (
AABS
)0.6
ZABS = 16000 100

Pump 0.65
ZPm = c1 Ẇ Pm
c1 = 1000 $∕kW0.65
LTHEX (
A
)0.6
ZHTHEX = 12000 HTHEX
100

HTHEX (
A
)0.6
ZLTHEX = 12000 LTHEX
100

ir= 0.12, n= 20 years 

where τ is the total operation time of the energy system in where ir is the interest rate and n is the number of operating
one year, which is assumed 8000 h in this research and CRF years.
is the capital recovery factor that can be defined as [45]: In order to evaluate the system from exergoeconomic
( )n point of view, cF, k, cP, k, ĊD, k, ĊL, k, and fk are illustrated
ir 1 + ir as [50]:
CRF = ( )n (22)
1 + ir − 1
Ċ F,k
cF,k = (24)
Table 3 summarizes the cost equations(Zk)of the system ̇ F,k
EX
components at the base year. Subsequently, Zk for the present
year (2018) is premeditated [46]:
Ċ P,k
CEPCI of the present year cP,k =
̇ P,k (25)
Cost at present year = Original cost × EX
CEPCI of the base year
(23)

13
 E. Gholamian et al.

Table 4  Cost balances and auxiliary equations for the components [28, 38, 51]
Component Energy balance Exergy balance

SOFC
SOFC Ċ3 + Ċ9 + ŻSOFC,stack,PY =  Ċ4 + Ċ10 + ĊW,SOFC,stack c4 = cW,SOFC,DC
c10 = cW,SOFC,DC
AHX Ċ2 + Ċ11 + ŻAHX,PY=  Ċ12 + Ċ3a c11 = c12
Fuel Blower ĊW,FC + Ċ7 + ŻFC,PY=  Ċ8 cW,FC = cW,SOFC,AC
Air blower ĊW,AC + Ċ1 + ŻAC,PY=  Ċ2 c1 = 0
cW,AC = cW,SOFC,AC
Afterburner Ċ10b + Ċ4a + ŻAB,PY=  Ċ11 c10b = c9b , c4a = c3b
c10b = c10 , c3b = c4
Anode mixer Ċ8 + Ċ9b + ŻAM,PY(0) =  Ċ9 N/A
Cathode mixer Ċ3b + Ċ3a + ŻCM,PY(0) =  Ċ3 N/A
Inverter ĊW,SOFC,DC + ŻI,PY =  ĊW,SOFC,AC N/A
ICE
ICE Ċ12 + Ċ15 + ŻSE,PY =  Ċ14 + Ċ13 + ĊW,SE
( ) ( )
̇ 14 − c15 EX
cW,SE = c14 EX ̇ 14 − EX
̇ 15 ∕ EX ̇ 15
c12 = c13
MGT
Comp. Ċ 1 + Ċ 46 + Ż AC = Ċ 2 c46 = c47
C.C Ċ 7 + Ċ 2 + Ż C.C = Ċ 3 N/A
GT Ċ 3 + Ż GT = Ċ 3 + Ċ 47 c4 = c3
Li/Br double effect absorption chiller
HPG Ċ7 + ĊQPV +ŻHPG=  Ċ8 + Ċ11 Ċ 11
=
Ċ 7 (e8 −e11 )
+
Ċ 8
ṁ 11 (ex11 −ex7 ) ṁ 7 (ex11 −ex7 )(ex8 −ex7 ) ṁ 8 (ex8 −ex7 )

LPG Ċ11 + Ċ10 +ŻLPG=  Ċ14 + Ċ15 + Ċ12 Ċ 14

=
Ċ 10 (e15 −e14 )
+
Ċ 15
ṁ 14 (ex14 −xe10 ) ṁ 10 (ex14 −ex10 )(ex15 −ex10 ) ṁ 15 (ex15 −ex10 )

Cooling set Ċ14 + Ċ13 +ŻCOND =  Ċ1 + ΔĊCOND Ċ 13 + Ċ 14 Ċ

Ċ3 + Ċ17 +ŻABS =  Ċ4 + ΔĊABS = 1
̇EX13 + EX ̇ 14 Ė 1
Ċ12 + Ċ14 + Ċ9 + Ċ16
̇C3 + Ċ 17 ̇C4
+ŻABS + ŻCOND + ŻEVAP + 3ŻE.V =  ΔĊCOND + ΔĊABS + Ċ23-Ċ22 =
+Ċ4 + Ċ10 ̇ 3 + EX
EX ̇ 17 Ė 4
c1 = c2 , c2 = c3 , c9 = c10
c12 = c13 , c16 = c17 , c22 = c23
Pump Ċ4 + Ċ26 + ŻPm =  Ċ5 c19 = c26
LTHEX Ċ6 + Ċ8 +ŻHTHEX =  Ċ7 + Ċ9 c8 = c9
HTHEX Ċ5 + Ċ15 + Ċ34 + ŻLTHEX = Ċ6 + Ċ16 + Ċ35 c15 = c16
c34 = c35

Ċ D,k = cF,k EX
̇ D,k (26) demonstrates the importance of capital and operating and
maintenance costs against exergy inefficiency costs.
Cost balances for the components and auxiliary equations
Ż k are tabulated in Table 4.
fk = (27)
Ż k + Ċ D,k+ Ċ L,k
Performance evaluation
cP,k − cF,k
rk =
cF,k (28) In order to evaluate the performance of the system, the
energy efficiency from the first law of thermodynamics, for
which are defined as the unit cost of fuel, the unit cost of different scenarios in the proposed CCHP system, can be
the product, the cost rate of exergy destruction, the cost defined as [43, 52]:
rate of exergy loss, and the exergoeconomic factor, respec-
tively. The exergoeconomic factor, as shown in Eq. (27),

13
4E analysis and three-objective optimization for selection of the best prime mover in smart…

∑nk ̇
Ẇ SOFC − Ẇ Compressors − Ẇ Pump + Q̇ heating + Q̇ Cooling Z
i=1 k
𝜂I,a = cp,tot = (38)
ṁ F LHVF Ẇ net × 𝜏 × EC
(29)
in which EC is assumed to be the electricity cost and equals
Ẇ ICE − Ẇ Pump + Q̇ heating + Q̇ Cooling
𝜂I,b = (30) to 0.1 $ kWh−1 in this study.
ṁ F LHVF
Environmental impact assessment
Ẇ MGT − Ẇ Pump + Q̇ heating + Q̇ Cooling
𝜂I,c = (31) Using CCHP systems and efficient design of the energy
ṁ F LHVF
systems, along with the utilization of renewable technology
with low GHG emissions, results in environmental sustain-
Ẇ SOFC − Ẇ Compressors − Ẇ Pump + Ẇ MGT + Q̇ heating + Q̇ Cooling ability. In this manner, a sustainability index is defined in
𝜂I,d =
ṁ F LHVF the literature, and the amount of emitted ­CO2 is of prime
(32) importance in this index [54, 55]. The emitted C ­ O2 for dif-
where 𝜂I,a - d defines the first law efficiencies for the scenarios ferent scenarios is defined via Eqs. 38–41. Also, for showing
1–4, respectively. Also ṁ F and LHVF are the flow rate and the motivation of the use of CCHP systems, the emitted C ­ O2
lower heating value of the fuel (which is considered natural for the best case from efficiency and economic viewpoints
gas since its price in Iran is very low). Q̇ heating is the gener- is put to a comparison. The three considered cases for the
ated heating for domestic use by HRSG and Q̇ cooling is the best-case scenario are: (1) single prime mover is the sole
amount of generated cooling via absorption chiller. objective of the system, and the exhaust gases are discharged
Also, to find out how the proposed system in different to the atmosphere; (2) prime mover and HRSG for hot water
scenarios operates in terms of the second law of thermody- production are used; (3) a CCHP system based on prime
namics, the exergetic efficiency of the system for scenarios mover and HRSG along with absorption chiller is used.
1–4 is defined as follows, respectively [42, 53]: ṁ CO2 ,emitted
𝜀em,1 = (39)
Ẇ net,SOFC + EX
̇ heating + EX
̇ cooling Ẇ SOFC + Q̇ heating + Q̇ cooling
𝜂II,a = (33)
̇ F
EX
ṁ CO2 ,emitted
𝜀em,2 = (40)
Ẇ net,ICE + EX
̇ heating + EX
̇ cooling Ẇ ICE + Q̇ heating + Q̇ cooling
𝜂II,b = (34)
̇ F
EX
ṁ CO2 ,emitted
𝜀em,3 = (41)
Ẇ net,MGT + Ė heating + Ė cooling Ẇ MGT + Q̇ heating + Q̇ cooling
𝜂II,c = (35)
̇ F
EX
ṁ CO2 ,emitted
𝜀em,4 = (42)
Ẇ net,SOFC,MGT + EX
̇ heating + EX
̇ cooling Ẇ SOFC,MGT + Q̇ heating + Q̇ cooling
𝜂II,d = (36)
̇ F
EX

in which Ė F is the exergy of the fuel, which is 3D optimization procedure

equal to the chemical exergy of the fuel [43]. And
̇ heating = EX
EX ̇ 34 and EX
̇ 33 − EX ̇ cooling = EX ̇ 23.
̇ 22 − EX In designing thermal systems, many contradictory objec-
The total unit product cost can be achieved for the system tives need to be satisfied concurrently. When considering
by writing an overall cost balance to the proposed method in single-objective optimization, it is evident that to reach
different scenarios as [39]: higher efficiency, the equipment with higher price suits
∑nk ̇ ∑nF ̇ well to the system performance. Also, when the price is
Z + i=1
i=1 k
CFi the sole objective to be minimized, the efficiency will be
cp,tot = ∑k ̇ (37) sacrificed. In this study, a 3D multi-objective optimization
EXPi
i=1
is carried out considering to maximize exergy efficiency
in which cF is considered to be 0.04 cent m−3 in Iran. Fur- and minimize both the unit product cost and emissions
thermore, the payback period can be defined as [47]:

13

Multi-Objective
Optimization Starts
Define decision variables:Current density, Fuel
utilization factor, stack Temperature difference, ∆Tpp,
pressure ratio of compressors
Define decision variables bounds
Generate first generation randomly:
A set of numbers for decision variables in
defined bounds
Find the objective functions (Efficiency, cost
Rate, and emission) corresponding to
variables and evaluate them. Keep non-
dominated points
No
Generate new
Are these points
satisfy stopping criteria?
population
based on
or
crossover and
Maximum number
mutation on
of generations
exceed?
kept points
Yes
End of optimization
Plot Pareto Frontier and Scatters
Fig. 2  Flowchart of optimization based on genetic algorithm
simultaneously. Neural fuzzy network code is developed
in MATLAB software to get the advantage of a genetic
algorithm to optimize Eqs. 33–36 (to be maximized) along
with Eq. 37 and 42 (to be minimized). An optimal point is
selected among a set of the optimized solution which will
be given by MATLAB known as Pareto frontier [56]. The
parameters and their domain in the optimization method
are gathered in  3D Multi-objective optimization results
section for the best-case scenario. Figure 2 indicates the
flowchart of optimization carried out to reach the best
solution point. Also, the genetic algorithm is an iterative
method to find the ideal solution imitating the attitude
of the natural evolutionary process [57]. Using a genetic
algorithm, abundant populations are generated in a random
manner, among which the ones having the greatest com-
patibility with the objective functions are selected and the
13
E. Gholamian et al.
Table 5  Tuning parameters in the genetic algorithm optimization
method
Tuning parameter Value
Population size 350
Maximum number of generations 400
Probability of crossover 85%
Probability of mutation 1%
Selection process Tournament
Tournament size 2
less compatible ones are crossed out. In the genetic algo-
rithm method, the two important factors are crossover and
mutation. The crossover operative mixes chromosomes as
parents to produce new chromosomes called offspring. The
new generations in the genetic algorithm have higher cor-
respondence to the objective functions since in each step,
genes with higher compatibility are chosen as parents. The
mutation operator, however, causes chaotic variations in
the structures of the genes and thus makes the optimization
process away from the confined optimal.
Moreover, the tuning decision variables for multi-objec-
tive method are listed in Table 5.
Results and discussion
To find the effective critical parameters on the system per-
formance, a parametric study is carried out in the proposed
CCHP system. Also, an environmental analysis result, along
with exergoeconomic results proposing exergoeconomic fac-
tors and variables, is reported. Finally, the results of Multi-
objective optimization point out the best solution and the
best prime mover for us.
Verification of developed models
To verify the developed thermodynamic models for each of
the subsystems of the proposed CCHP system, the available
data in the scientific literature are used. Validation of the
SOFC and verification of the ICE are presented in Fig. 3
by comparing to the available experimental results reported
by Tao et al. [58] and Hosseinpour et al. [59]. As the figure
shows, the outcomes of the present study fit well on available
experimental and numerical results.
Moreover, to show the accuracy of the results obtained
for the double effect absorption refrigeration system in the
present work, the reported data by Gomri and Hakimi are
used [60]. The comparison is shown in Table 6, indicating an
excellent agreement between the two sets of results.
4E analysis and three-objective optimization for selection of the best prime mover in smart…

(a) 0.8 0.35 (b) 1.1

Vc : Tao et al. W/A : Tao et al.
Vc : Present study W/A : Present study Present study
0.75
Hosseinpour et al.
0.3 1
0.7

W/A/W m–1

WSE/kW
Vc/V

0.65 0.25 0.9

0.6
0.2 0.8
0.55

0.5 0.15 0.7

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
j/A cm–2 RV

Fig. 3  a Validation of modeling of the SOFC modeling and b verification of the modeling of the ICE

Table 6  Comparison of the results obtained from the present work Heating output/kW Cooling output/kW Net power output/kW Unit Product cost /$ GJ–1

with experimental data for double effect absorption cycle 800

719.50
Constituent Symbol Present work/kW Experi-
700
ment/kW
[60] 600

HP generator Q̇ HG 252.5 252.407 500

Condenser Q̇ cd 167.3 167.205 441.90

400
Evaporator Q̇ Ev 300 300 346.50
311.00
Absorber Q̇ ab 385.3 385.236 300 271.00

Pump Ẇ 0.054 0 210.50

200 174.00
COP 1.188 1.189
100 78.69
51.57 51.57
38.88 35.20 37.63 30.98 37.78
18.91
0
scenario 1 scenario 2 scenario 3 scenario 4
100 scenario 1 scenario 2 scenario 3 scenario 4
91.87
91.27
86.70

86.31

86.32
85.74

90 Fig. 5  Comparison of the unit product cost, generated power, heating,

78.54
78.53

80
and cooling in different scenarios
69.06
68.65
66.67

64.73

70
59.42

59.83

60 demonstrated in Fig. 4. Also, the generated power, heating,

52.28
Efficiency/%

50.76

and cooling, as well as unit product cost of different sce-

45.82

44.79
44.48

44.49

50
narios, are presented in Fig. 5. Taking Fig. 4 into considera-
tion, it is evident that considering only the power produc-
33.14

33.41

40
30.95

30.05

30 tion system, scenario 4 has the most energetic and exergetic

efficiency, namely 66.67% and 64.73%, respectively. Sce-
20
nario 4 is capable of producing 441.9 kW net power output,
10 and the scenarios 1, 3, and 2 are in the next positions with
0 346.5 kW, 311 kW, and 210.5 kW, respectively. According
η I,P η II,P η I,CHP η II,CHP η I,CCHP η II,CCHP
to Fig. 5, the power production in different cases is all the
more reason that scenario 4 indicates more energetic and
Fig. 4  Comparison of efficiencies for power production, CHP system
and CCHP system in four different scenarios
exergetic efficiency. Another essential aspect of Fig. 5 is the
energetic and exergetic efficiencies of different cases when
the CHP system is considered. Since the energetic efficiency
Comparative study results considers the quantity of energies and not the qualities, the
energetic efficiency of scenario 2 is the highest efficiency
In order to evaluate the best proposed CCHP system, the effi- among the cases with 86.7%, which is because it can gener-
ciencies of each scenario for the power production system, ate 719.5 kW heating capacity. Moreover, the MGT system
the CHP system, and the CCHP system are, respectively, produces 271 kW heating, which is more than 174 kW in

13
 E. Gholamian et al.

6 PP/year Emission/P
5.33
5 unit product of the system becomes. Also, more equipment
4
3
2 1.84
0.64
1 0.38
0.60
0.52
0.25 0.23
0 indicates the fastest payback period among the other cases
scenario 1 scenario 2
Fig. 6  Comparison of payback period and emission reduction in dif-
ferent scenarios
scenario 1 and 78.69 kW in scenario 4. Besides, the exer-
getic efficiency in scenario 4 is 68.65%, which is more than
in other cases, since the power generation, in this case, is
higher. The last but not the least important aspect of Fig. 5
is energetic and exergetic efficiency of the CCHP system in
4 cases. Considering the energetic efficiency, scenario 2 is
the most efficient system with an efficiency of 91.87%. The
hybrid SOFC/GT system operates better in terms of exegetic
efficiency, with an efficiency of 69.06%.
The conclusion from Figs. 3 and 4 is that hybrid SOFC/
GT system operates better in terms of power generation,
and considering the second law efficiency, it has the high-
est efficiency. It is noteworthy that scenario 2 generates
more heating than other cases, and it is the best case when
more steam is required. Another important aspect of Fig. 4
Emission/CHP Emission/CCHP is the unit product cost in different cases. According to
Eq. (37), the more exergy of products is, the cheaper the
in the system causes the nominator of Eq. (37) to become
larger. The unit product cost in scenarios 1–4 is 38.88
($ GJ−1), 18.91($ GJ−1), 30.98($ GJ−1), and 37.78($ GJ−1),
respectively.
Figure 6 indicates the comparison of emission in power
generation system, CHP, and CCHP system along with the
1.70
1.49
payback period in four different scenarios. According to
Eqs. (39–42), emission in the CCHP system becomes less
0.30
than the power generation system and CHP system, which is
0.43
0.23 0.21 0.25 0.23 an excellent motivation to use the CCHP system. Scenario 4
scenario 3 scenario 4
with 1.49 years, while scenario 2 has the longest payback
period of 5.33. Additionally, the power generation, CHP and
CCHP emissions for hybrid SOFC/GT are 0.30 (ton/MWh),
0.25 (ton/MWh), and 0.23 (ton/MWh), respectively.
To investigate the systems from exergy and exergoeco-
nomic points of view, the exergy indicator parameters like
exergy destruction, the exergy of fuel, exergy of product, and
lost exergy are presented as exergy indicators. Besides, the
cost of components, cost of fuel, and cost of product along
with destructed cost and lost cost are illustrated as exergo-
economic indicators in Tables 7 8, 9, 10 for different cases,
respectively. According to tables, in scenario 1, AHE, SOFC,
and AB with exergy destruction of 120 kW, 52.16 kW, and
42.62 kW, respectively, have the highest exergy destruction
rate. These values are the same for scenario 4. This is due
to the fact that in SOFC and A.B, there is all three primary
source of irreversibility in the system, which is chemical
reaction, mixing, and temperature difference. Moreover,
because of the very high temperature difference in AHE,
the exergy destruction in this component is higher than the

Table 7  Exergy and exergoeconomic parameters of scenario 1

ĖXD/kW ĖXF/kW ĖXP/kW ĖXL/kW Cost/$ h−1 Cf/$ GJ−1 Cp/$ ­GJ−1 CD/$ ­h−1 CL/$ ­h−1 ƒ/%

AHE 120.00 385.60 245.80 0.00 4.50 9.35 15.19 4.04 0.00 10.26
SOFC 52.16 1333.0 1269.60 0.00 10.57 6.08 8.37 1.14 0.00 89.20
AB 42.62 544.00 501.30 0.00 1.77 8.37 9.35 1.29 0.00 27.27
HRSG 20.07 79.08 59.01 0.00 2.15 9.35 13.67 0.68 0.00 11.20
FHE 8.07 19.74 11.67 0.00 0.28 9.35 16.02 0.27 0.00 2.92
CS 7.11 8.51 2.83 0.00 0.26 8.51 26.00 0.22 0.00 19.96
AC 3.01 15.90 12.89 0.00 0.44 8.63 18.19 0.09 0.00 78.89
HPG 2.80 14.66 11.81 21.99 1.24 0.00 0.18 0.00 1.23 100.0
HTHEX 1.49 6.83 5.34 0.00 0.05 1.93 4.48 0.01 0.00 78.85
LPG 1.27 4.98 3.72 0.00 0.01 0.46 1.00 0.00 0.00 70.31
LTHEX 0.59 1.97 1.37 0.00 0.03 0.88 6.71 0.00 0.00 93.47
FC 0.06 0.43 0.37 0.00 0.03 8.63 60.28 0.00 0.00 94.20
Pump HRSG 0.04 0.17 0.12 0.00 0.01 8.63 38.30 0.00 0.00 90.29
Pump 0.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 0.01 0.16 10.12 0.00 0.00 100.0

13
4E analysis and three-objective optimization for selection of the best prime mover in smart…

Table 8  Exergy and exergoeconomic parameters of scenario 2

ĖXD/kW ĖXF/kW ĖXP/kW ĖXL/kW Cost/$ ­h−1 Cf/$ ­G−1 Cp/$ ­GJ−1 CD/$ ­h−1 CL/$ ­h−1 ƒ/%

ICE 132.40 358.40 226.00 0.00 98.76 155.20 260.20 73.99 0.00 11.54
CS 3.88 5.81 1.93 0.00 4.04 4.68 4.72 4.00 0.00 1.34
HPG 1.90 9.99 8.09 4.11 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00  2.3 100.0
HRSG 1.14 5.74 4.59 0.00 27.26 155.20 180.40 0.64 0.00 97.65
HTHEX 1.02 4.66 3.64 0.00 0.18 0.64 0.68 0.14 0.00 21.66
LPG 0.86 3.39 2.54 0.00 0.02 0.08 0.08 0.02 0.00 20.12
LTHEX 0.40 1.34 0.94 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.01 0.00 71.43
HRSG pump 0.12 0.13 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.40 0.00 0.00 39.28
Pump 0.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 4.68 4.71 0.00 0.00 100.0

Table 9  Exergy and exergoeconomic parameters of scenario 3

ĖXD/kW ĖXF/kW ĖXP/kW ĖXL/kW Cost/$ ­h−1 Cf/$ ­GJ−1 Cp/$ ­GJ−1 CD/$ ­h−1 CL/$ ­h−1 ƒ/%

CC 198.80 743.90 545.00 0.00 21.2 1.098 155.2 1.256 0.00 10.26
HRSG 143.60 143.72 92.07 0.00 11.92 5.97 9.56 5.92 0.00 74.35
GT 34.94 393.20 358.30 0.00 8.65 130.6 143 5.34 0.00 69.3 
CS 5.19 6.21 2.07 0.00 7.69 4.21 4.05 3.44 0.00 15.67
AC 2.76 46.50 43.73 0.00 3.21 9.94  12.65  4.98 0.00 78.89
HPG 1.46 10.68 8.65 26.10 0.01 0 0.068 0  2.04 100.0
HTHEX 1.09 4.98 3.90 0.00 0.04 0.13 0.15 0.026 0.00 43.09 
LPG 0.92 3.63 2.71 0.00 0.01 0.070 0.071 0.017 0.00 52.31 
LTHEX 0.43 1.43 1.00 0.00 0.068 0.032 0.053 0.0092 0.00 80.45
HRSG pump 0.06 0.26 0.19 0.00 0.25 0.23 0.36 0.0027 0.00 38.28
Pump 0.00 4.00 5.00 0.00 0.02 1.0158 1.089 0 0.00 100.0

Table 10  Exergy and exergoeconomic parameters of scenario 4

ĖXD/kW ĖXF/kW ĖXP/kW ĖXL/kW Cost/$ ­h−1 Cf/$ ­GJ−1 Cp/$ G ­J−1 CD/$ ­h−1 CL/$ ­h−1 ƒ/%

AHE 120.00 385.60 245.80 0.00 4.50 9.35 15.19 4.04 0.00 10.26
SOFC 52.16 1333.0 1269.60 0.00 10.57 6.08 8.37 1.14 0.00 89.20
AB 42.62 544.00 501.30 0.00 1.77 8.37 9.35 1.29 0.00 27.27
HRSG 20.07 79.08 59.01 0.00 2.15 9.35 13.67 0.68 0.00 81.20
FHE 8.07 19.74 11.67 0.00 0.28 9.35 16.02 0.27 0.00 2.92
CS 7.11 8.51 2.83 0.00 0.26 8.51 26.00 0.22 0.00 19.96
GT 5.97 101.30 95.30 0.00 0.73 9.35 11.46 3.41 0.00 72.30
|AC 3.01 15.90 12.89 0.00 0.44 8.63 18.19 0.09 0.00 78.89
HPG 2.80 14.66 11.81 15.43 1.24 0.00 0.18 0.00 1.18 100.0
HTHEX 1.49 6.83 5.34 0.00 0.05 1.93 4.48 0.01 0.00 78.85
LPG 1.27 4.98 3.72 0.00 0.01 0.46 1.00 0.00 0.00 70.31
LTHEX 0.59 1.97 1.37 0.00 0.03 0.88 6.71 0.00 0.00 93.47
FC 0.06 0.43 0.37 0.00 0.03 8.63 60.28 0.00 0.00 94.20
Pump HRSG 0.04 0.17 0.12 0.00 0.01 8.63 38.30 0.00 0.00 90.29
Pump 0.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 0.01 0.16 10.12 0.00 0.00 100.0

others. In the case of ICE and MGT, the engine and com- it is noteworthy that the last column of Tables 5–8 is the
bustion chamber have the highest exergy destruction rate, exergoeconomic factor (f). A low value of this factor calcu-
which is 132.4 kW and 198.8 kW, respectively. Additionally, lated for a significant component suggests that cost-saving

13
 E. Gholamian et al.

69.1 41 74 60
cp,tot cp,tot
69 ηII,CCHP 40 73 ηII,CCHP
55
68.9 39 72
η ex,CCHP /%

cp,tot /$ GJ–1
cp,tot /$ GJ–1
50

η ex,CCHP /%
68.8 38 71

68.7 37 70
45
68.6 36 69
40
68.5 35 68

68.4 34 67 35
80 100 120 140 3000 4000 5000 6000
∆T,stack /°C J/A m–1

Fig. 7  Effect of stack temperature difference on exergy efficiency and Fig. 9  Effect of current density on exergy efficiency and unit product
unit product cost of the system in scenario 4 cost of the system in scenario 4

69.5 120 69.5 100

ηII,CCHP
69 cp,tot 69
100
80
68.5 68.5

c p,tot /$ GJ–1
c p,tot /$ GJ–1

η ex,CCHP /%
80 ηII,CCHP
η ex,CCHP/%

68 68
cp,tot
60
67.5 67.5
60
67 67
40
40
66.5 66.5

66 20 66 20
0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1
Uf /– PRac/–

Fig. 8  Effect of fuel utilization factor on exergy efficiency and unit Fig. 10  Effect of air compressor pressure ratio on exergy efficiency
product cost of the system in scenario 4 and unit product cost of the system in scenario 4

in the entire system might be achieved by improving the
component efficiency (reducing exergy destruction) even if
the capital investment for the component will increase. So,
it is evident that in the system, FHE and AHE have very
low exergoeconomic factors, which are 2.92% and 10.26%
for scenarios 1 and 4. These values are 1.34% for cooling
set in scenario 2 and 10.26 for the combustion chamber in
scenario 3. On the other hand, a high value of this factor sug-
gests a decrease in the investment cost of this component at
the expense of its exergetic efficiency (like fuel compressor
in cases 1 and 4).
Parametric study results
The effect of crucial decision variables on the system per-
formance indexes which are exergetic efficiency and unit
product cost is indicated in this section, for the scenario
number 4, which is proved to be the better case study among
the other proposed cases.
Figure 7 depicts the effect of stack temperature difference
on exergy efficiency and unit product cost. Increasing stack
temperature difference has a positive effect on unit product
cost and reduces the cost from 40.43 (S/GJ) to 34.38 (S/GJ).
However, the change in exergetic efficiency is not much, and
after reaching a maximum of 69.07% at 102 °C, it reduces to
68.46%. This is mainly due to the fact that increasing stack
temperature difference results in a reduction in power output
and an increase in heating capacity since the outlet enthalpy
of the SOFC is higher.
Fuel utilization factor is another crucial design parameter,
the effect of which on exergetic efficiency and unit product
cost is shown in Fig. 8. Increasing fuel utilization factor
from 0.65 to 0.9 causes a maximum in exergy efficiency in
­Uf = 0.83, corresponding to a value of 69.2%. Also, a mini-
mum of 23.6 ($ GJ−1) is reached for unit product cost at
the fuel utilization factor of 0.68, which makes this param-
eter more critical form the multi-objective optimization
viewpoint.

13
4E analysis and three-objective optimization for selection of the best prime mover in smart…

70.5 37.85 The effect of the current density of SOFC on exergy effi-
ηII,CHP
cp,tot ciency and unit product cost is indicated in Fig. 9. Increasing
70 37.8 current density from 2500 (A m−2) to 6100 (A m−2) results
in a decrease in exergy efficiency from 73.4 to 67.1%. This is

cp,tot /$ GJ–1
69.5 37.75
mainly because cell voltage decreases, and therefore, power
η ex,CCHP/%

69 37.7
output from the SOFC decreases as a result of an increase
in the current density. Also, this increase causes a reduction
68.5 37.65 in unit product cost from 55.08 ($ GJ−1) to 35.01 ($ GJ−1).
One of the crucial decision variables on system perfor-
68 37.6 mance is the pressure ratio of air compressor, which is also
110 120 130 140 150 160
equal to the value of the fuel compressor, pressure ratio,
δTpp/°C
the effect of which is indicated in Fig. 10. According to this
figure, when the value of PRac is raised from 1.1 to 2.1, the
Fig. 11  Effect of pinch point temperature difference in exergy effi-
exergy efficiency decreases, and unit product cost increases
ciency and unit product cost of the system in scenario 4
from 69.4 to 66.3% and 27.1($ GJ−1) to 98.02 ($ GJ−1),
respectively. This trend is primarily because increasing the
Table 11  Domain of major Parameter Range pressure ratio of the compressors requires more power input
decision parameters to the compressors.
ΔTstack/°C 80 <ΔTstack < 150 The last but not the least important parameter to study is
PRac 1.1 <PRac < 2.1 the effect of pinch point temperature difference in the varia-
J /A ­m−2 2500 < J < 6100 tion in unit product cost and exergy efficiency, which is pre-
Uf 0.65 < Uf < 0.9 sented in Fig. 11. As was anticipated, rising pinch point tem-
ΔTpp/°C 150 <ΔTpp < 200 perature difference has a negative effect on heating capacity
and, thus, on overall exergy efficiency and unit product cost.
Furthermore, increasing pinch point temperature difference
about 50 °C causes a reduction in exergy efficiency, about
2.1%, and an increase in unit product cost about 0.5%.
65

64 3D Multi‑objective optimization results

CO2 Emission/g MWh–1

63
By considering the overall exergy efficiency, C ­ O2 emission,
62 and the total unit product cost as the objective parameters, a
61
multi-objective optimization is applied by using MATLAB
software. Five decision parameters, along with their ranges,
60 are listed in Table 11.
59 The optimal solution points of the system are illustrated
Ideal Point 68 in Fig. 12 as a Pareto frontier solution. As a result of multi-
25
50
70
objective optimization to maximize exergy efficiency and
75 72
100
125 74 minimize unit product cost and C ­ O2 emission, a 3-dimen-
Ctot/$ GJ–1
Exergy Efficiency/% sional Pareto Frontier is presented in Fig. 12, which is a
fitted surface to the optimum results of optimization. The
Fig. 12  Distribution of the 3D Pareto optimal solutions for exergy ideal point of the Pareto Frontier is specified in the figure,
efficiency, ­CO2 emission, and unit product cost of the system and it has an exergy efficiency of 73.15%, unit product cost

Table 12  Pareto frontier selected points with decision variables and objective functions value
Point description ΔTstack/°C PRfc J/A ­m−2 Uf ΔTpp/°C ηII, tot/% CP,tot/$ GJ−1 CO2
emission/g
­MWh−1

1 Max efficiency 85.09 1.20 2570.23 0.87 155.47 73.15 61.01 63.10
2 Min cost 88.37 1.23 5450.15 0.69 176.30 66.44 25.08 60.80
3 Min emission 138.38 2.05 4662.01 0.69 152.16 66.11 124.43 58.10
4 Best point 91.77 1.24 2763.29 0.86 158.68 72.57 62.12 62.52

13
 E. Gholamian et al.

(a) (d) 0.9

160 All Genetic Points
Upper & Lower Bounds
All Genetic Points
150 Upper & Lower Bounds 0.85
Stack temperature difference/°C

140

Fuel utilization factor

0.8
130

120 0.75

110
0.7
100

90 0.65

80
0.6
70 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Population Number
Population Number (e)
(b) 210

Pinch point temperature difference in HRSD/°C

All Genetic Points
2.1 All Genetic Points Upper & Lower Bounds
Upper & Lower Bounds 200
2
Pressure ration of air compressor

1.9 190

1.8
180
1.7

1.6 170

1.5
160
1.4

1.3 150

1.2
140
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Population Number Population Number
(c)
6000 All Genetic Points
Fig. 13  (continued)
Upper & Lower Bounds

5500
of 25.08 ($ GJ−1), and ­CO2 emission of 58.10 g MWh−1.
Current Density/A m–2

5000
To investigate the behavior of each decision variable on the
4500 optimization process, 4 points of the Pareto Frontier are
selected, and their results, such as the value of decision vari-
4000 ables and objective functions, are listed in Table 10. The first
3500
3 points are called single-objective optimum points in which
only the value of one objective is considered as criteria to
3000 be minimized or maximized. The fourth point is the closest
to the ideal point, which is called the best solution point. As
2500
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
illustrated in Table 11, point 1, possessing the maximum
Population Number exergy efficiency of 73.15%, has the minimum stack tem-
perature difference (85.09 K), pressure ratio of (1.20), cur-
Fig. 13  Scatter distribution of decision variables with Pareto frontier: rent density of 2570.23 A m–2, and fuel utilization factor of
a stack temperature difference, b pressure ratio of air compressor, c 0.87, which shows that the lower amount of these parameters
current density, d fuel utilization factor, e pinch point temperature leads the system to a higher amount of exergy efficiency.
difference

13
4E analysis and three-objective optimization for selection of the best prime mover in smart…
However, the fuel utilization factor (Uf) has a reverse effect
on the efficiency, and the higher amount of Uf = 0.87 results
in maximum efficiency. If the unit product cost is selected as
the only objective to be minimized, point 2 is the optimum
point of the total cost rate of 25.08 ($ GJ−1). According to
Table 12, the higher values of pinch point temperature dif-
ference cause lower values of the unit product cost. Point
3 is the point with the lowest C ­ O2 emission of 58.10 (g/
MWh). Stack temperature difference has a reverse effect on
the emission in the way that increasing the Stack tempera-
ture difference reduces the emission.
To have a better overview of the decision variables, the
scattered distribution of these parameters is depicted in
Fig. 13. From data in Fig. 13a, it can be seen that all the opti-
mal points of stack temperature difference are located nearly
between 120 and 140. This means that if stack tempera-
ture difference is around 130 °C, the optimum solution can
be reached. Figure 13b shows the distribution of the pres-
sure ratio of air compressors and reveals that keeping this
parameter at its lowest value results in better optimization
outcomes. These results also are shown in Fig. 8 in the para-
metric study section, which shows that increasing the pres-
sure ratio of air compressor leads to the exergy efficiency
decreasing and unit product cost increasing. Figure 13c, d
and e reveals that current density, fuel utilization factor, and
pinch point temperature difference have scattered distribu-
tions in their allowable domain. Current density tends to
have lower values around 3000 A m−2, and fuel utilization
factor shall be above 0.75 to get an optimal solution. Moreo-
ver the selected optimal range for pinch point temperature
difference is around 165 °C.
Conclusions
In this research paper, four different scenarios are pro-
posed for producing, heating, cooling, and power in a small
residential scale. The proposed systems are studied from
viewpoints of energy, exergy, exergoeconomic, and environ-
mental impact. The superior prime mover for the integrated
system is selected to be optimized, considering exergetic effi-
ciency and unit product cost as two main objectives. Three-
objective optimization is carried out to find the maximum
of exergy efficiency and a minimum of unit product cost and
­CO2 emission. Main findings of the present study, as well as
multi-objective optimization results, are as follows:
• Results demonstrate that the hybrid SOFC/GT system
proves to be better in terms of exergetic efficiency and
payback period, which is 69.06% and 1.49 years, respec-
tively.
• ICE proves to be the better system in terms of heating
generation and unit product cost, which is 719.50 kW
and 18.91 ($ GJ−1).
• The parametric study shows that for specific values of
fuel utilization factor, the efficiency increases and unit
product cost decreases, which is of great importance for
optimization purposes.
• Results show that using CCHO system demonstrates a
great motivation in reducing the GHG emission.
• Optimization results show that maximum exergy effi-
ciency for the best case can be reached higher costs,
respectively, at 73.15% and 61.1 ($ ­GJ-1).
• Moreover, the minimum cost can be reached to the hybrid
SOFC/GT system at 29.02 ($ GJ−1), which corresponds
to the efficiency of 66.44%.
• The best solution points based on five decision param-
eters are 73.15% in exergetic efficiency, 25.08 $ GJ−1 in
unit product cost, and 58.10 (g MWh−1) of C ­ O2 emission.
Acknowledgements  The authors would like to thank the center of
excellence in design and optimization of university of Tehran.
Authors contribution  EG involved in methodology, simulation, writing
original draft. PH took part in supervision, methodology, conceptual-
ization. PA participated in supervision, validation, proofreading. LM
took part in supervision, developing system schematic idea
Funding  No funding is received.
Availability of data and material  The data and other material related to
this paper will be available upon request.
Compliance with ethical standards 
Ethics approval  The authors agree on ethics on publishing the article.
Informed consent  The authors declare their consent for publication
of this article.
Conflict of interest  The authors declare that they have no known com-
peting financial interests or personal relationships that could have ap-
peared to influence the work reported in this paper. The authors declare
the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be
considered as potential competing interests.
References
1. Rahmati A, Varedi-Koulaei SM, Ahmadi MH, Ahmadi H.
Dimensional synthesis of the Stirling engine based on optimiz-
ing the output work by evolutionary algorithms. Energy Rep.
2020;6:1468–86. https​://doi.org/10.1016/J.EGYR.2020.05.030.
2. Motahar S, Bagheri-Esfeh H. Artificial neural network based
assessment of grid-connected photovoltaic thermal systems
in heating dominated regions of Iran. Sustain. Energy Tech-
nol. Assess. 2020;39:100694. https ​ : //doi.org/10.1016/J.
SETA.2020.10069​4.
13

3. Safari F, Javani N, Yumurtaci Z. Hydrogen production via
supercritical water gasification of almond shell over algal
and agricultural hydrochars as catalysts. Int J Hydrogen
Energy. 2018;43:1071–80. https​: //doi.org/10.1016/J.IJHYD​
ENE.2017.05.102.
4. Gholamian E, Mahmoudi SMS, Zare V. Proposal, exergy analysis
and optimization of a new biomass-based cogeneration system.
Appl Therm Eng. 2016;93:223–35. https:​ //doi.org/10.1016/j.applt​
herma​leng.2015.09.095.
5. Kaldehi BJ, Keshavarz A, Pirooz AAS, Batooei A, Ebrahimi
M. Designing a micro Stirling engine for cleaner production
of combined cooling heating and power in residential sector of
different climates. J Clean Prod. 2017;154:502–16. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclep​ro.2017.04.006.
6. Mojaver P, Khalilarya S, Chitsaz A, Assadi M. Multi-objec-
tive optimization of a power generation system based SOFC
using Taguchi/AHP/TOPSIS triple method. Sustain Energy
Technol Assess. 2020;38:100674. https​: //doi.org/10.1016/J.
SETA.2020.10067​4.
7. Abbasi M, Chahartaghi M, Hashemian SM. Energy, exergy, and
economic evaluations of a CCHP system by using the internal
combustion engines and gas turbine as prime movers. Energy
Convers Manag. 2018;173:359–74. https​://doi.org/10.1016/J.
ENCON​MAN.2018.07.095.
8. Cai B, Li H, Hu Y, Zhang G. Operation strategy and suitabil-
ity analysis of CHP system with heat recovery. Energy Build.
2017;141:284–94. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbui​ld.2017.02.056.
9. Mehrpooya M, Sadeghzadeh M, Rahimi A, Pouriman M.
Technical performance analysis of a combined cooling heat-
ing and power (CCHP) system based on solid oxide fuel cell
(SOFC) technology—a building application. Energy Convers
Manag. 2019;198:111767. https​://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENCON​
MAN.2019.06.078.
10. Wang Z, Han W, Zhang N, Liu M, Jin H. Proposal and assessment
of a new CCHP system integrating gas turbine and heat-driven
cooling/power cogeneration. Energy Convers Manag. 2017;144:1–
9. https​://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENCON​MAN.2017.04.043.
11. Li L, Mu H, Gao W, Li M. Optimization and analysis of CCHP
system based on energy loads coupling of residential and
office buildings. Appl Energy. 2014;136:206–16. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/J.APENE​RGY.2014.09.020.
12. Jing R, Wang M, Brandon N, Zhao Y. Multi-criteria evaluation
of solid oxide fuel cell based combined cooling heating and
power (SOFC-CCHP) applications for public buildings in China.
Energy. 2017;141:273–89. https​://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERG​
Y.2017.08.111.
13. Abbasi MH, Sayyaadi H, Tahmasbzadebaie M. A methodology
to obtain the foremost type and optimal size of the prime mover
of a CCHP system for a large-scale residential application. Appl
Therm Eng. 2018;135:389–405. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.applt​
herma​leng.2018.02.062.
14. Petreanu I, Ebrasu D, Sisu C, Varlam M. Thermal analysis of
sulfonated polymers tested as polymer electrolyte membrane for
PEM fuel cells. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2012;110:335–9. https​://
doi.org/10.1007/s1097​3-012-2442-z.
15. Singh OK. Combustion simulation and emission control in natu-
ral gas fuelled combustor of gas turbine. J Therm Anal Calorim.
2016;125:949–57. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1097​3-016-5472-0.
16. Farahnak M, Farzaneh-Gord M, Deymi-Dashtebayaz M, Dashti
F. Optimal sizing of power generation unit capacity in ICE-
driven CCHP systems for various residential building sizes. Appl
Energy. 2015;158:203–19. https​://doi.org/10.1016/J.APENE​
RGY.2015.08.050.
17. Feng L, Dai X, Mo J, Shi L. Performance assessment of CCHP
systems with different cooling supply modes and operation
13
E. Gholamian et al.
strategies. Energy Convers Manag. 2019;192:188–201. https​://
doi.org/10.1016/J.ENCON​MAN.2019.04.048.
18. Moghimi M, Emadi M, Ahmadi P, Moghadasi H. 4E analysis
and multi-objective optimization of a CCHP cycle based on gas
turbine and ejector refrigeration. Appl Therm Eng. 2018;141:516–
30. https:​ //doi.org/10.1016/J.APPLTH​ ERMAL ​ ENG.2018.05.075.
19. Lara Y, Petrakopoulou F, Morosuk T, Boyano A, Tsatsaronis G.
An exergy-based study on the relationship between costs and envi-
ronmental impacts in power plants. Energy. 2017;138:920–8. https​
://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERG​Y.2017.07.087.
20. Ansarinasab H, Mehrpooya M, Sadeghzadeh M. An exergy-
based investigation on hydrogen liquefaction plant-exergy,
exergoeconomic, and exergoenvironmental analyses. J Clean
Prod. 2019;210:530–41. https ​ : //doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEP​
RO.2018.11.090.
21. Ahmadi MH, Nazari MA, Sadeghzadeh M, Pourfayaz F, Ghaz-
vini M, Ming T, Meyer JP, Sharifpur M. Thermodynamic and
economic analysis of performance evaluation of all the thermal
power plants: a review. Energy Sci Eng. 2019;7:30–65. https:​ //doi.
org/10.1002/ese3.223.
22. Al Moussawi H, Fardoun F, Louahlia H. 4-E based optimal man-
agement of a SOFC-CCHP system model for residential applica-
tions. Energy Convers Manag. 2017;151(2017):607–29. https​://
doi.org/10.1016/j.encon​man.2017.09.020.
23. Yousefi H, Ghodusinejad MH, Kasaeian A. Multi-objective
optimal component sizing of a hybrid ICE + PV/T driven CCHP
microgrid. Appl Therm Eng. 2017;122:126–38. https​: //doi.
org/10.1016/J.APPLT​HERMA​LENG.2017.05.017.
24. Rey G, Ulloa C, Cacabelos A, Barragáns B. Performance analysis,
model development and validation with experimental data of an
ICE-based micro-CCHP system. Appl Therm Eng. 2015;76:233–
44. https:​ //doi.org/10.1016/J.APPLTH​ ERMAL ​ ENG.2014.10.087.
25. Luo XJ, Fong KF. Development of multi-supply-multi-demand
control strategy for combined cooling, heating and power system
primed with solid oxide fuel cell-gas turbine. Energy Convers
Manag. 2017;154:538–61. https​://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENCON​
MAN.2017.11.032.
26. Chen X, Zhou H, Li W, Yu Z, Gong G, Yan Y, Luo L, Wan Z,
Ding Y. Multi-criteria assessment and optimization study on
5 kW PEMFC based residential CCHP system. Energy Convers
Manag. 2018;160:384–95. https​://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENCON​
MAN.2018.01.050.
27. Chitgar N, Emadi MA, Chitsaz A, Rosen MA. Investigation of a
novel multigeneration system driven by a SOFC for electricity and
fresh water production. Energy Convers Manag. 2019;196:296–
310. https​://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENCON​MAN.2019.06.006.
28. Behzadi A, Gholamian E, Houshfar E, Ashjaee M, Habibollahzade
A. Thermoeconomic analysis of a hybrid PVT solar system inte-
grated with double effect absorption chiller for cooling/hydro-
gen production. Energy Equip. Syst. 2018;6:413–27. https​://doi.
org/10.22059​/ees.2018.33319​.
29. Jokar MA, Ahmadi MH, Sharifpur M, Meyer JP, Pourfayaz F,
Ming T. Thermodynamic evaluation and multi-objective optimiza-
tion of molten carbonate fuel cell-supercritical CO2 Brayton cycle
hybrid system. Energy Convers Manag. 2017;153:538–56. https​
://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENCON​MAN.2017.10.027.
30. Safari F, Dincer I. Development and analysis of a novel biomass-
based integrated system for multigeneration with hydrogen pro-
duction. Int J Hydrogen Energy. 2019;44:3511–26. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/J.IJHYD​ENE.2018.12.101.
31. Beigzadeh M, Pourfayaz F, Ahmadi MH. Modeling and improve-
ment of solid oxide fuel cell-single effect absorption chiller hybrid
system by using nanofluids as heat transporters. Appl Therm Eng.
2020;166:114707. https​: //doi.org/10.1016/J.APPLT​H ERMA​
LENG.2019.11470​7.
4E analysis and three-objective optimization for selection of the best prime mover in smart…
32. Behzadi A, Habibollahzade A, Ahmadi P, Gholamian E,
Houshfar E. Multi-objective design optimization of a solar
based system for electricity, cooling, and hydrogen production.
Energy. 2019;169:696–709. https​://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERG​
Y.2018.12.047.
33. Gholamian E, Zare V. A comparative thermodynamic investiga-
tion with environmental analysis of SOFC waste heat to power
conversion employing Kalina and organic rankine cycles. Energy
Convers Manag. 2016;117:150–61. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
encon​man.2016.03.011.
34. Gholamian E, Zare V, Mousavi SM. Integration of biomass gasifi-
cation with a solid oxide fuel cell in a combined cooling, heating
and power system: a thermodynamic and environmental analy-
sis. Int J Hydrogen Energy. 2016. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhyd​
ene.2016.07.217.
35. Gholamian E, Hanafizadeh P, Ahmadi P, Mazzarella L. A tran-
sient optimization and techno-economic assessment of a build-
ing integrated combined cooling, heating and power system in
Tehran. Energy Convers Manag. 2020;217:112962. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/J.ENCON​MAN.2020.11296​2.
36. Behzadi A, Arabkoohsar A. Comparative performance assess-
ment of a novel cogeneration solar-driven building energy system
integrating with various district heating designs. Energy Convers
Manag. 2020;220:113101. https​://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENCON​
MAN.2020.11310​1.
37. Al-Khori K, Bicer Y, Koç M. Integration of solid oxide fuel cells
into oil and gas operations: needs, opportunities, and challenges.
J Clean Prod. 2020;245:118924. https​://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEP​
RO.2019.11892​4.
38. Gholamian E, Hanafizadeh P, Ahmadi P. Exergo-economic analy-
sis of a hybrid anode and cathode recycling SOFC/Stirling engine
for aviation applications. Int. J. Sustain. Aviat. 2018;4:11. https​://
doi.org/10.1504/IJSA.2018.09291​5.
39. Yari M, Mehr AS, Mahmoudi SMS, Santarelli M. A comparative
study of two SOFC based cogeneration systems fed by municipal
solid waste by means of either the gasifier or digester. Energy.
2016;114:586–602. https:​ //doi.org/10.1016/j.energy​ .2016.08.035.
40. Khani L, Mehr AS, Yari M, Mahmoudi SMS. Multi-objective opti-
mization of an indirectly integrated solid oxide fuel cell-gas tur-
bine cogeneration system. Int J Hydrogen Energy. 2016;41:21470–
88. https​://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJHYD​ENE.2016.09.023.
41. Eshraghi A, Salehi G, Heibati S, Lari K. An assessment of the
effect of different energy storage technologies on solar power
generators for different power sale scenarios: the case of Iran.
Sustain. Energy Technol. Assessments. 2019;34:62–7. https:​ //doi.
org/10.1016/J.SETA.2019.04.006.
42. Sadaghiani MS, Ahmadi MH, Mehrpooya M, Pourfayaz F, Feidt
M. Process development and thermodynamic analysis of a novel
power generation plant driven by geothermal energy with liquefied
natural gas as its heat sink. Appl Therm Eng. 2018;133:645–58.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/J.APPLT​HERMA​LENG.2018.01.077.
43. Bejan A, Moran MJ. Thermal design and optimization. Hoboken:
Wiley; 1996.
44. Wu C, Wang SS, Feng XJ, Li J. Energy, exergy and exergoeco-
nomic analyses of a combined supercritical CO2 recompres-
sion Brayton/absorption refrigeration cycle. Energy Convers
Manag. 2017;148:360–77. https ​ : //doi.org/10.1016/j.encon​
man.2017.05.042.
45. Balli O, Aras H, Hepbasli A. Thermodynamic and thermo-
economic analyses of a trigeneration (TRIGEN) system with
a gas-diesel engine: part I—Methodology. Energy Convers
Manag. 2010;51:2252–9. https ​ : //doi.org/10.1016/j.encon​
man.2010.03.021.
46. Indicators, Economic. “Marshall&Swift equipment cost index.”
Chem Eng 72 (2011).
47. Dinçer I, Rosen M, Ahmadi P. Optimization of energy systems.
Hoboken: Wiley; 2017.
48. Rokni M. Thermodynamic and thermoeconomic analysis of a sys-
tem with biomass gasification, solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) and
Stirling engine. Energy. 2014;76:19–31. https:​ //doi.org/10.1016/j.
energ​y.2014.01.106.
49. Sánchez D, Chacartegui R, Torres M, Sánchez T. Stirling based
fuel cell hybrid systems: an alternative for molten carbonate fuel
cells. J Power Sources. 2009;192:84–93. https:​ //doi.org/10.1016/j.
jpows​our.2008.12.061.
50. Assar M, Blumberg T, Morosuk T, Tsatsaronis G. Comparative
exergoeconomic evaluation of two modern combined-cycle power
plants. Energy Convers Manag. 2016;153:616–26. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.encon​man.2017.10.036.
51. Habibollahzade A, Houshfar E, Ashjaee M, Gholamian E, Behzadi
A. Enhanced performance and reduced payback period of a low
grade geothermal-based ORC through employing two TEGs.
Energy Equip. Syst. 2019;7:23–39. https​://doi.org/10.22059​/
EES.2019.34611​.
52. Landau L, Moran MJ, Shapiro HN, Boettner DD, Bailey M. Fun-
damentals of engineering thermodynamics. Hoboken: Wiley;
2010.
53. Gholamian E, Hanafizadeh P, Ahmadi P. Advanced exergy analy-
sis of a carbon dioxide ammonia cascade refrigeration system.
Appl. Therm. Eng. 2018;137:689–99. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
applt​herma​leng.2018.03.055.
54. Ahmadi P, Dincer I, Rosen MA. Exergy, exergoeconomic and
environmental analyses and evolutionary algorithm based
multi-objective optimization of combined cycle power plants.
Energy. 2011;36:5886–98. https​://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERG​
Y.2011.08.034.
55. S. Mohammad, S. Mahmoudi, E. Gholamian, V. Zare, Exergy
analysis of a new configuration of trigeneration system based on
biomass Gasifier, (n.d.). https​://www.resea​rchga​te.net/profi​le/
Ehsan​_Ghola​mian/publi​catio​n/31127​0911_EXERG​Y_ANALY​
SIS_OF_A_NEW_CONFI ​ G URAT ​ I ON_OF_TRIGE ​ N ERAT​
ION_SYSTE ​ M _BASED ​ _ ON_BIOMA ​ S S_GASIF ​ I ER/links​
/58405​cd108​ae2d2​1755f​3299.pdf (accessed June 27, 2017).
56. Behzadi A, Arabkoohsar A, Gholamian E. Multi-criteria optimiza-
tion of a biomass-fired proton exchange membrane fuel cell inte-
grated with organic rankine cycle/thermoelectric generator using
different gasification agents. Energy. 2020;201:117640. https​://
doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERG​Y.2020.11764​0.
57. Holland JH. Adaptation in natural and artificial systems: an intro-
ductory analysis with applications to biology, control, and artifi-
cial intelligence. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press; 1975.
58. Tao G, Armstrong T, Virkar A, Intermediate temperature solid
oxide fuel cell (IT-SOFC) research and development activities at
MSRI. In: Ninet. Annu. ACERC&ICES Conf. Utah, 2005.
59. Hosseinpour J, Sadeghi M, Chitsaz A, Ranjbar F, Rosen MA.
Exergy assessment and optimization of a cogeneration sys-
tem based on a solid oxide fuel cell integrated with a stirling
engine. Energy Convers Manag. 2017;143:448–58. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/J.ENCON​MAN.2017.04.021.
60. Gomri R, Hakimi R. Second law analysis of double effect
vapour absorption cooler system. Energy Convers Manag.
2008;49:3343–8.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
13